|
Can't believe this thread is still broken since Idra came on 2 weeks ago, worse than talking extended series. Please don't bring him back. He's a great player but not a great personality.
@Talin;
I can think of a few situations where a build will instantly KO another, but mostly I feel that's down to the build being beaten having fundamental flaws, e.g. not getting detection in time for DTs. Micro (which i assume is synomonus with execution) is still a game deciding factor which is ultimately limited by APM as is the ability to pull off multi drops / multi pronged attacks.
I get the feeling a decent chunk or BW APM was trying to overcome bad AI or terrible UI (single building selection, manually making new workers work).
So is is just me that thinks that some hard counters make the game a bit more interesting? Since someone can always hard counter the previous persons hard counter if done right. e.g. Collosus into Immortal if too many Vikings.
|
On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 12:40 Talin wrote:
In a nutshell, you don't need a game to be perfectly balanced (with an RTS that could easily be impossible) - you just need to make sure that the better player has better odds of winning. One way to do that is just to make the game very challenging mechanically. When the execution of even the most basic things is really hard, most good strategies will be dependent on the player's ability to execute them correctly.
No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition. Show nested quote +
On the other hand, when execution is (pretty much) a non-issue, it's the strategy itself that wins or loses, and all that the player needs to do is make the right decisions. Having a system of units that hard counter each other only emphasizes that issue. This also makes it all the more easier for existing flaws in the system to become actual imbalances that cannot be easily overcome with skill.
SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff.. Show nested quote +
What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used.
Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator. Show nested quote +
Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/
All this discussion is moot anyway. SC2 is as mechanically demanding a game as a mainstream company can get away with making. Even more so really, but it has the names Starcraft and Blizzard backing it. Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun.
Stop repeating what everybody is saying... IdrA is a very creativ player, with very refined playstyle.
If you were playing zerg, you would know that his mechanics are not his only strong point.
And there is a lot of hardcounters in SC2, just look at a units such as zergling, who was the pillar of zerg's play in SC1 and just a situational units in SC2 due to hardcounters.
|
On April 16 2011 18:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:On April 16 2011 12:40 Talin wrote:
In a nutshell, you don't need a game to be perfectly balanced (with an RTS that could easily be impossible) - you just need to make sure that the better player has better odds of winning. One way to do that is just to make the game very challenging mechanically. When the execution of even the most basic things is really hard, most good strategies will be dependent on the player's ability to execute them correctly.
No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition.
On the other hand, when execution is (pretty much) a non-issue, it's the strategy itself that wins or loses, and all that the player needs to do is make the right decisions. Having a system of units that hard counter each other only emphasizes that issue. This also makes it all the more easier for existing flaws in the system to become actual imbalances that cannot be easily overcome with skill.
SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff..
What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used.
Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator.
Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/
All this discussion is moot anyway. SC2 is as mechanically demanding a game as a mainstream company can get away with making. Even more so really, but it has the names Starcraft and Blizzard backing it. Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun. Stop repeating what everybody is saying... IdrA is a very creativ player, with very refined playstyle. If you were playing zerg, you would know that his mechanics are not his only strong point. And there is a lot of hardcounters in SC2, just look at a units such as zergling, who was the pillar of zerg's play in SC1 and just a situational units in SC2 due to hardcounters.
I think 90% of the people who argue "hard counters" don't really understand how BW worked, or even how SC2 works.
Lets take a "counter" from BW, which would be Dragoons vs Vultures. Although a vulture can do basically zilch to a Dragoon (due to concussive damage (I believe) being reduced against Dragoons) it was still possible to win a fight against a Dragoon. How? You used spider mines and your superior speed to keep outside of its range.
Lets take a "hard counter" from SC2, Marauders vs Stalkers. Normally, this is such a slaughter that it isn't even funny. However, with good Blink, it is possible to beat Marauders 1 vs 1 with Stalkers (involving dodging a shot).
If SC2 was really all "hard counters" then it simply wouldn't matter what you built as long as it hard countered whatever he built. For example, because he built Colossi, you should just build a few vikings, and suddenly he can't use Colossi anymore. Is this true? Hell no. Viking + MMM vs Colossus + Blink Stalkers is a micro battle of both sides trying to expose their "counters" to whatever they're good against. You have to keep the Vikings out of reach of the Blink Stalkers, but within reach of the Colossi, but the Stalkers can close gaps quickly, so you have to keep your MMM beneath them, but then the Colossus range can take them out, so you...
You know what else sounds like that? Vulture/Tank vs Dragoon/Zealot. You don't want the Tank blowing the crap out of your Dragoon, so you have to carefully position it to try and take out the Vulture. But the Vulture is faster than it, so you want to keep your Zealot back within range of your Dragoon. But then the Siege Tank is killing them both, so you have to carefully move your Zealot in such a way that the Tank wastes shots on it so your Dragoon can shoot down the Vulture before it kills your Zealot which is trying to kill the tank.
Save "Units that can't shoot up" vs "Units that fly" there really isn't a hard counter in this game. There is no unit that, once it is out there, completely negates the use of the units its good against. Phoenixes reduce the harass potential of Mutalisks, but Phoenixes are vulnerable to both Corruptors and Hydras, as well as being surrounded by a simply larger swarm of Mutalisks so that they have to take damage.
|
On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition.
By which definition?
Statement about skill in BW is also incorrect. You did need extreme levels of mechanical skill and multitasking to pull out good strategies in Brood War, but good strategies were still good strategies, and smart players are still smart players. But it isn't enough to just be smart and make all the right decisions at all the right times - which most of the time is the case with SC2.
On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff..
Yeah, "to a degree" being the key point here. Melee being countered by air, and ground being countered by walking into a static Siege Tank line is basic, reasonable stuff.
On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator.
You think Idra is doing "just fine"? He's doing horrible for his skill level.
As much as I dislike the guy, he IS one of the highest rated BW players to currently play the game, and his mechanics are vastly superior to a lot of the players he loses to. Now, Idra did have some epic fails in BW as well, but that was against players who were no pushovers at all and very mechanically capable in their own right (NonY, F91).
But losing to Cruncher, Drewbie, LotzePrime and various other amateur-level players I can't recall right now, with all due respect, should be literally impossible, especially in series. Just like Goody should never beat NesTea in a million years, nor should Adel ever be able to beat MVP just because he figured some upgrade timings while having worse macro than an average TL member (the community, not the team).
On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun.
We're not talking about a business application or an RPG here, you can't apply the same standards.
Normally, when designing UI the goal is to make life easier for the end user - to make it mechanically easier for him to work with the software. Sure you don't want a web browser which has no tabs, where you need to click 3 times and manually type in the URL each time you want to visit a website.
But games, especially if they're designed with multiplayer competitive gaming in mind, usually have the opposite problem - how to make it harder for the player, thus effectively raising the skill cap and make it more challenging and difficult to be good at the game. If user interface is part of why the game is so challenging and has such a high skill cap, then that should be the developers' primary concern if they're going for a highly competitive / e-sport product.
You may argue that the "difficulty should not be in the UI", but the skill really does come from that - the ability of a human player to CONTROL his in-game assets skilfully to overcome a player with worse CONTROL. This is not just how Brood War works - this is how fighting games work too, or even traditional FPS games like Counter Strike if you consider aiming to be the control aspect of it.
Ultimately, "fighting a piss poor interface" is why we are all in awe of BW pro gamers and their near superhuman ability to play this game and why they're just so much better than even the top semi-pro or amateur gamers (who are sick good in their own right). Are there any near superhuman SC2 players? Just please don't say MC or MVP. -_-
|
On April 16 2011 19:20 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:40 WhiteDog wrote:On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:On April 16 2011 12:40 Talin wrote:
In a nutshell, you don't need a game to be perfectly balanced (with an RTS that could easily be impossible) - you just need to make sure that the better player has better odds of winning. One way to do that is just to make the game very challenging mechanically. When the execution of even the most basic things is really hard, most good strategies will be dependent on the player's ability to execute them correctly.
No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition.
On the other hand, when execution is (pretty much) a non-issue, it's the strategy itself that wins or loses, and all that the player needs to do is make the right decisions. Having a system of units that hard counter each other only emphasizes that issue. This also makes it all the more easier for existing flaws in the system to become actual imbalances that cannot be easily overcome with skill.
SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff..
What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used.
Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator.
Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/
All this discussion is moot anyway. SC2 is as mechanically demanding a game as a mainstream company can get away with making. Even more so really, but it has the names Starcraft and Blizzard backing it. Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun. Stop repeating what everybody is saying... IdrA is a very creativ player, with very refined playstyle. If you were playing zerg, you would know that his mechanics are not his only strong point. And there is a lot of hardcounters in SC2, just look at a units such as zergling, who was the pillar of zerg's play in SC1 and just a situational units in SC2 due to hardcounters. I think 90% of the people who argue "hard counters" don't really understand how BW worked, or even how SC2 works. Lets take a "counter" from BW, which would be Dragoons vs Vultures. Although a vulture can do basically zilch to a Dragoon (due to concussive damage (I believe) being reduced against Dragoons) it was still possible to win a fight against a Dragoon. How? You used spider mines and your superior speed to keep outside of its range. Lets take a "hard counter" from SC2, Marauders vs Stalkers. Normally, this is such a slaughter that it isn't even funny. However, with good Blink, it is possible to beat Marauders 1 vs 1 with Stalkers (involving dodging a shot). If SC2 was really all "hard counters" then it simply wouldn't matter what you built as long as it hard countered whatever he built. For example, because he built Colossi, you should just build a few vikings, and suddenly he can't use Colossi anymore. Is this true? Hell no. Viking + MMM vs Colossus + Blink Stalkers is a micro battle of both sides trying to expose their "counters" to whatever they're good against. You have to keep the Vikings out of reach of the Blink Stalkers, but within reach of the Colossi, but the Stalkers can close gaps quickly, so you have to keep your MMM beneath them, but then the Colossus range can take them out, so you... You know what else sounds like that? Vulture/Tank vs Dragoon/Zealot. You don't want the Tank blowing the crap out of your Dragoon, so you have to carefully position it to try and take out the Vulture. But the Vulture is faster than it, so you want to keep your Zealot back within range of your Dragoon. But then the Siege Tank is killing them both, so you have to carefully move your Zealot in such a way that the Tank wastes shots on it so your Dragoon can shoot down the Vulture before it kills your Zealot which is trying to kill the tank. Save "Units that can't shoot up" vs "Units that fly" there really isn't a hard counter in this game. There is no unit that, once it is out there, completely negates the use of the units its good against. Phoenixes reduce the harass potential of Mutalisks, but Phoenixes are vulnerable to both Corruptors and Hydras, as well as being surrounded by a simply larger swarm of Mutalisks so that they have to take damage.
You are... wrong.
Just look at liquipedia.
A hard counter is something that beats its counterpart even with inferior investment.
A soft counter usually beats its counterpart, but may lose with inferior investment.
We prefer not to use these terms on this wiki. They are ambiguous and there are many edge cases. For example, in ZvZ, 9 pool is usually considered a hard counter to 12 hatchery. However, if you can keep the 12 Hatchery alive, and still make the right decisions to carry the larvae advantage into a win, then obviously 9 pool was not a hard counter to 12 hatchery.
You are only refering to the counter that the developper have made for the game: for exemple dragoon taking not so many damage from vulture and doing 100% of their damage on them. But that's not how it is, units that may not have been designed to counter specific units can, in the end, counter them. For exemple Marine in SC2 just crushface Muta.
Colossi have no been designed to counter anything (or they are designed to counter everything ? I wonder), yet sentries + colossi can stomp an hydra ball even with inferior investment.
Back in SC1, even the tier 1 units (or especialy the T1 units ?) could do wonder with good enough micro/flank at some point of the game. Now look back at SC2, at some point of the game you can make like 0 damage on a small colossi ball with a 200/200 roach hydra ball if the protoss manage his sentries well and have good positionning..
|
On April 16 2011 19:20 Aequos wrote:
I think 90% of the people who argue "hard counters" don't really understand how BW worked, or even how SC2 works.
Lets take a "counter" from BW, which would be Dragoons vs Vultures. Although a vulture can do basically zilch to a Dragoon (due to concussive damage (I believe) being reduced against Dragoons) it was still possible to win a fight against a Dragoon. How? You used spider mines and your superior speed to keep outside of its range.
Lets take a "hard counter" from SC2, Marauders vs Stalkers. Normally, this is such a slaughter that it isn't even funny. However, with good Blink, it is possible to beat Marauders 1 vs 1 with Stalkers (involving dodging a shot).
If SC2 was really all "hard counters" then it simply wouldn't matter what you built as long as it hard countered whatever he built. For example, because he built Colossi, you should just build a few vikings, and suddenly he can't use Colossi anymore. Is this true? Hell no. Viking + MMM vs Colossus + Blink Stalkers is a micro battle of both sides trying to expose their "counters" to whatever they're good against. You have to keep the Vikings out of reach of the Blink Stalkers, but within reach of the Colossi, but the Stalkers can close gaps quickly, so you have to keep your MMM beneath them, but then the Colossus range can take them out, so you...
You know what else sounds like that? Vulture/Tank vs Dragoon/Zealot. You don't want the Tank blowing the crap out of your Dragoon, so you have to carefully position it to try and take out the Vulture. But the Vulture is faster than it, so you want to keep your Zealot back within range of your Dragoon. But then the Siege Tank is killing them both, so you have to carefully move your Zealot in such a way that the Tank wastes shots on it so your Dragoon can shoot down the Vulture before it kills your Zealot which is trying to kill the tank.
The flaw in this argument is that you're using Blink to substantiate your statements. Blink is not only an ability that has to be researched separately in order for Stalkers to be able to use it, it's also an ability that perfectly demonstrates the real flaw in SC2 design - because of the hard counter concept, no amount of micro will make Stalkers stand up to Marauders (or even mass Roaches), so they gave Stalkers a tech ability that's only a powered-up substitute for actual micro. Blink micro is actually an oxymoron.
The comparison between Vikings/MMM vs Stalker/Colossus and Vulture/Tank vs Dragon/Zealot actually proves my point perfectly - because there is no equivalent of Blink (or even Charge) in BW.
Your Zealots don't have a magical access to Tanks so they can snipe them. Your Dragoons don't have a big enough range to shoot at things on the other side of the map while chilling in a safe spot. What you can accomplish today with the aid of Blink, Charge, Viking range, Extended Thermal lance, Forcefields etc, back in Brood War you had to accomplish by carefully examining the situation and controlling each unit perfectly to win the battle.
|
Going to have to agree with another post. This thread has turned to shit. Please don't bring Idra back -_-
|
On April 16 2011 19:32 Talin wrote:
You think Idra is doing "just fine"? He's doing horrible for his skill level.
You're assuming IdrA is more skilled than his opponents then going from there. I judge based on the evidence. I don't see the evidence that IdrA should be doing any better than he is.
Other BW pros do very, very well. MVP, MC...perhaps the difference with IdrA is that he's Zerg, perhaps the difference is that he isn't as good as his fans believe. Either way, there is evidence contradicting the idea that it is SC2 itself stopping him.
As much as I dislike the guy, he IS one of the highest rated BW players to currently play the game, and his mechanics are vastly superior to a lot of the players he loses to. Now, Idra did have some epic fails in BW as well, but that was against players who were no pushovers at all and very mechanically capable in their own right (NonY, F91).
Personally I think it's great that a mechanically strong player can lose because he ragequits to hallucinations, or doesn't scout an obvious proxy stargate etc. Maybe it's his race, maybe it's his attitude, whatever. It's not SC2.
But losing to Cruncher, Drewbie, LotzePrime and various other amateur-level players I can't recall right now, with all due respect, should be literally impossible, especially in series. Just like Goody should never beat NesTea in a million years, nor should Adel ever be able to beat MVP just because he figured some upgrade timings while having worse macro than an average TL member (the community, not the team).
I agree this shouldn't be possible (well, assuming they play well), but only after the game is mostly figured out ala BW. SC2 is nowhere near that stage. All pros lose to strange shit they've never seen. They also lose to strategies that haven't been figured out yet. Which is normal and fine.
We're not talking about a business application or an RPG here, you can't apply the same standards.
I'm not...interface development has come a long way in the last 15 years, in all applications/games.
Normally, when designing UI the goal is to make life easier for the end user - to make it mechanically easier for him to work with the software. Sure you don't want a web browser which has no tabs, where you need to click 3 times and manually type in the URL each time you want to visit a website.
Certainly. That is the entire point of an interface. Allowing the user to implement their desires as easily as possible.
But games, especially if they're designed with multiplayer competitive gaming in mind, usually have the opposite problem - how to make it harder for the player, thus effectively raising the skill cap and make it more challenging and difficult to be good at the game. If user interface is part of why the game is so challenging and has such a high skill cap, then that should be the developers' primary concern if they're going for a highly competitive / e-sport product.
This is complete garbage. You can make things difficult by forcing people to remember to do stuff, or force them to make choices. Do I chrono my warpgate or my sentry? Remembering to inject. Etc. Forcing people to fight against a crap interface in order to what they wish is simply retarded. BW's interface was acceptable for its time, but for modern times it is complete and utter trash.
You may argue that the "difficulty should not be in the UI", but the skill really does come from that - the ability of a human player to CONTROL his in-game assets skilfully to overcome a player with worse CONTROL. This is not just how Brood War works - this is how fighting games work too, or even traditional FPS games like Counter Strike if you consider aiming to be the control aspect of it.
Difficulty should most certainly not be in the UI. I don't give a shit how good someone is at fighting a crap interface, and I have no interest in playing such a game. I assure you most people agree with me: that's why Blizzard would never have released a game with an interface as poor as BWs. A crap interface doesn't make a game hard, it makes it crap. Difficulty is supposed to come from other areas.
Ultimately, "fighting a piss poor interface" is why we are all in awe of BW pro gamers and their near superhuman ability to play this game and why they're just so much better than even the top semi-pro or amateur gamers (who are sick good in their own right). Are there any near superhuman SC2 players? Just please don't say MC or MVP. -_-
You may be in awe, I'm not. If I wanted to watch a robot I could. I'm not interested in a computer playing chess, and I'm not interested in seeing how close to a computer a human can play Starcraft. I'm interested in players like White-Ra who pull off cool and smart moves.
|
On April 16 2011 19:32 Talin wrote:
Normally, when designing UI the goal is to make life easier for the end user - to make it mechanically easier for him to work with the software. Sure you don't want a web browser which has no tabs, where you need to click 3 times and manually type in the URL each time you want to visit a website.
But games, especially if they're designed with multiplayer competitive gaming in mind, usually have the opposite problem - how to make it harder for the player, thus effectively raising the skill cap and make it more challenging and difficult to be good at the game. If user interface is part of why the game is so challenging and has such a high skill cap, then that should be the developers' primary concern if they're going for a highly competitive / e-sport product.
You may argue that the "difficulty should not be in the UI", but the skill really does come from that - the ability of a human player to CONTROL his in-game assets skilfully to overcome a player with worse CONTROL. This is not just how Brood War works - this is how fighting games work too, or even traditional FPS games like Counter Strike if you consider aiming to be the control aspect of it.
Ultimately, "fighting a piss poor interface" is why we are all in awe of BW pro gamers and their near superhuman ability to play this game and why they're just so much better than even the top semi-pro or amateur gamers (who are sick good in their own right). Are there any near superhuman SC2 players? Just please don't say MC or MVP. -_-
I can't tell if this is just trolling or not, but it is perhaps the most ridiculous and asinine thing I've read in this thread - and that's saying a lot. In every strategy game there are two levels of play: strategy and execution. If the interface is really bad then there is a limit to what strategies can be employed. In a game where all strategies are known, it's certainly true that the only way to separate players is in the execution. But that isn't interesting.
While execution is one aspect of the game, it most certainly isn't the only one and for most people it probably isn't even close to being the biggest one. And for a new game like SC2 where all strategies are not even close to being known, it is actually a relatively minor aspect as superior strategy can crush superior execution of an inferior strategy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2011 19:32 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition. By which definition? Statement about skill in BW is also incorrect. You did need extreme levels of mechanical skill and multitasking to pull out good strategies in Brood War, but good strategies were still good strategies, and smart players are still smart players. But it isn't enough to just be smart and make all the right decisions at all the right times - which most of the time is the case with SC2. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff.. Yeah, "to a degree" being the key point here. Melee being countered by air, and ground being countered by walking into a static Siege Tank line is basic, reasonable stuff. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator. You think Idra is doing "just fine"? He's doing horrible for his skill level. As much as I dislike the guy, he IS one of the highest rated BW players to currently play the game, and his mechanics are vastly superior to a lot of the players he loses to. Now, Idra did have some epic fails in BW as well, but that was against players who were no pushovers at all and very mechanically capable in their own right (NonY, F91). But losing to Cruncher, Drewbie, LotzePrime and various other amateur-level players I can't recall right now, with all due respect, should be literally impossible, especially in series. Just like Goody should never beat NesTea in a million years, nor should Adel ever be able to beat MVP just because he figured some upgrade timings while having worse macro than an average TL member (the community, not the team). Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:22 Yaotzin wrote:
Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun. We're not talking about a business application or an RPG here, you can't apply the same standards. Normally, when designing UI the goal is to make life easier for the end user - to make it mechanically easier for him to work with the software. Sure you don't want a web browser which has no tabs, where you need to click 3 times and manually type in the URL each time you want to visit a website. But games, especially if they're designed with multiplayer competitive gaming in mind, usually have the opposite problem - how to make it harder for the player, thus effectively raising the skill cap and make it more challenging and difficult to be good at the game. If user interface is part of why the game is so challenging and has such a high skill cap, then that should be the developers' primary concern if they're going for a highly competitive / e-sport product. You may argue that the "difficulty should not be in the UI", but the skill really does come from that - the ability of a human player to CONTROL his in-game assets skilfully to overcome a player with worse CONTROL. This is not just how Brood War works - this is how fighting games work too, or even traditional FPS games like Counter Strike if you consider aiming to be the control aspect of it. Ultimately, "fighting a piss poor interface" is why we are all in awe of BW pro gamers and their near superhuman ability to play this game and why they're just so much better than even the top semi-pro or amateur gamers (who are sick good in their own right). Are there any near superhuman SC2 players? Just please don't say MC or MVP. -_-
Having a game be difficult because of it's incredibly bad UI isn't the only way to make it difficult, however I don't think that modern RTS games have been trying to make it legitimately hard instead of artificially injecting difficulty through retarded design.
|
On April 17 2011 02:08 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
Having a game be difficult because of it's incredibly bad UI isn't the only way to make it difficult, however I don't think that modern RTS games have been trying to make it legitimately hard instead of artificially injecting difficulty through retarded design.
No joke. The idea that somehow having a good interface lowers the skill ceiling is absurd. What the UI does is make it so that units do what you tell them to do when you tell them to do it. Skill emerges from actual control instead of just the ability to best abuse how broken the game is.
|
On April 17 2011 02:21 SlipperySnake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 02:08 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
Having a game be difficult because of it's incredibly bad UI isn't the only way to make it difficult, however I don't think that modern RTS games have been trying to make it legitimately hard instead of artificially injecting difficulty through retarded design. No joke. The idea that somehow having a good interface lowers the skill ceiling is absurd. What the UI does is make it so that units do what you tell them to do when you tell them to do it. Skill emerges from actual control instead of just the ability to best abuse how broken the game is.
But the units are so much easier to control now. You can't in the right mind tell me a stalker collosus sentry army is as difficult to control as a zealot dragoon high templar corsair shuttle / reaver army. Unlimited select + smartcasting just make it really easy to optimize your units. The control is far easier I don't see how you can deny that.
|
On April 17 2011 10:05 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 02:21 SlipperySnake wrote:On April 17 2011 02:08 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
Having a game be difficult because of it's incredibly bad UI isn't the only way to make it difficult, however I don't think that modern RTS games have been trying to make it legitimately hard instead of artificially injecting difficulty through retarded design. No joke. The idea that somehow having a good interface lowers the skill ceiling is absurd. What the UI does is make it so that units do what you tell them to do when you tell them to do it. Skill emerges from actual control instead of just the ability to best abuse how broken the game is. But the units are so much easier to control now. You can't in the right mind tell me a stalker collosus sentry army is as difficult to control as a zealot dragoon high templar corsair shuttle / reaver army. Unlimited select + smartcasting just make it really easy to optimize your units. The control is far easier I don't see how you can deny that.
That's true, but you can add difficulty to the game which makes skilled players shine through micro tricks, having an horrible interface isn't the only way to do it.
For example, kiting marines with stalkers or marine spreading or burrow/unburrow micro. However there should really be more of that sort of thing in the game.
|
I hope you guys realize nobody's going to bother reading your mini-essays except the other guy you're arguing with.
Was NASL moved to avoid conflicts with sotg?
|
No, the broadcasting of the games was moved a day back but the games are being played on the same schedule as before. They are basically doing it to allow players to reschedule their games up to a day later and give the studio more editing time so that they don't have to worry about as many walk overs and prevent editing mistakes like the one that spoiled the Squirtle axslav game.
|
On April 16 2011 18:38 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Can't believe this thread is still broken since Idra came on 2 weeks ago, worse than talking extended series. Please don't bring him back. He's a great player but not a great personality.
It was JP who brought up the topic of Protoss / Zerg balance both on last week's show and the show IdrA was on.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
^_^ I hope this week they revisit the balance topic, since now we have 5/8 protoss in TSL3.
|
I dont see how day9, tlyer and incontrol can still say with a straight face that zergs arent having trouble right now. I respect all 3 and their opinions but maybe their suggestions arent realistic to execute while being "safe."
Also I get their perspective on balance and the old BW days, but this is NOT BW. If e-sports wants to take off even further than it is right now, balance will have to be one of the issues they have to address actively. Fans have been complaining about balance since september and its always about zergs, at this point there isnt much of an excuse. (Although blizzard has been active on patching things so I'm not blasting them here.) I also feel that the balance talk can be annoying and people will always find something to complain about, but we aren't catering to those folks when we make these changes.
|
|
|
On April 18 2011 06:24 Gunman_csz wrote:
^_^ I hope this week they revisit the balance topic, since now we have 5/8 protoss in TSL3.
I'll revisit it.
Zerg players outside of Korea should be ashamed at this point that their strategies are being advanced by a player who doesn't play nearly full-time (Mondragon) and by an amateur player (Spanishiwa), and that even as non-refined and non-explored as their strategies are and as sloppy as their macro and overall mechanics are, they still allow both players to punch above their weight and actually show fantastic stuff in their games.
So instead of "revisiting the topic" and starting another shitstorm of painful-to-read imba posts, why not go ladder yourself and try figuring one style or the other further? As in, actually contributing to Zerg instead of finding an excuse to vent and take balance jibes on forums.
I'll leave this off with the quote provided by Kennigit in the LR thread:
Kennigit says (4:57 PM):
you did well ^^ . Everyone on twitter was cheering for you
Mondragon says (4:58 PM):
nah after the games vs cruncher
i found out how to play
XD
Kennigit says (4:58 PM):
hahah
Mondragon says (4:58 PM):
wouldnt have lost now!
^^
roaches + infestors only are the key to everything
Mondragon says (4:58 PM):
found out too late taht infestors are the key
!
Kennigit says (4:59 PM):
protoss death ball is -_-
Mondragon says (5:00 PM):
yes
protoss deathball isnt tough anymore
if you make 10 infestors ^^
either infestors + roaches only
Kennigit says (5:00 PM):
haha
Mondragon says (5:00 PM):
or just broodlords only + infestors only
both are fine
but i found out 3 days too late
Kennigit says (5:00 PM):
ahh ;;;
oh well, next time ^^
Mondragon says (5:00 PM):
yep yep 
-----
Did he really figure it out? I suppose we'll see, but I wouldn't be so quick to disregard anything he says. The least we can do, though, is learn from his attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
